MARIETTA — State representative-elect Charles Gregory (R-Kennesaw) has pre-filed four bills that would increase gun rights in Georgia, including the ability to carry firearms into churches and onto college campuses.

Gregory, who unseated veteran state Rep. Judy Manning (R-Marietta) in the Republican primary, said that while he filed the bills on Wednesday, he began work on them before the school shootings in Connecticut.

State Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan (D-Austell) is less than pleased by his proposed legislation.

“The only word that comes to my mind is ‘sad,’” Morgan said. “In a time where people are suffering and in the deepest pain I think this country has felt in a long time, I think this is not the time to start conversations about more guns. Now is the time to start the conversation about protecting kids and protecting people, not more guns, so I’m sad that those bills have been filed, and I just wish that right now we focus on healing and acknowledging the pain that the country is in, particularly the people of Connecticut.”

House Bill 26, The Georgia Constitution Carry Act of 2013, would eliminate the licensing requirement for citizens to carry concealed weapons within the state.

“You would be, according to the state, a legal weapons carrier by default of being proper age,” Gregory said of the bill. “The Constitution carries basically that if you can vote, you can carry.”

HB 27 is called The Restoring Gun Rights During a State of Emergency Act of 2013.

“There is a section of code that defines the emergency powers of the governor, and to be honest it is filled with a bunch of horrible infringements on the people,” Gregory said. “This one simply strikes out his ability to limit the sale and transfer of firearms during an emergency,” he said. “During times of emergency are the times when our liberties are eroded in the name of whatever emergency it is, and time after time government comes up with emergencies to erode our rights.”

HB 28 is called Restoring Private Property Rights for Places of Worship Act of 2013.

“In layman’s terms, that’s church carry,” Gregory said. “The point is anybody that owns property can say whether somebody is let on their property or what should be done on that property. Private property rights are very important. They’re fundamental to all of our rights. And what the government’s done is they have overrun private property rights specifically for places of worship. By striking this from the list of prohibited weapons carry locations, it returns that decision back the private property owner, so a church would be able to say what can and cannot be done on their own property.”

HB 29 is The Campus Carry Act of 2013.

“That is essentially the same thing as the church one, they’re both on the same list of prohibited locations,” Gregory said.

By campus, Gregory means, “the campus of any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university or institution of post-secondary education.”

Gregory said he limited the right to carry firearms to post-secondary education campuses because, “that is what is closer to politically feasible.”

“These laws just make people sitting ducks, and it is incomprehensible to me that we would try and use the government to try and strip somebody of their right to self-defense,” he said. “From a practical standpoint, if somebody was in that (Connecticut) school, say a principal had had a firearm, he probably could have saved many, many lives that day.”

Since the massacre in Connecticut, Gregory said he’s listened as many have proposed eroding gun rights.

“People need to stand up for these liberties right now,” he said. “When there is an emergency or a tragedy, that’s when these sort of things are taken, and it’s fighting tooth and nail to get any small bit of liberty back in this country because for the entire history of our country since the beginning it’s been erosion of our liberties, and people do need to stand up in defense of those liberties, and also beyond that from a practical standpoint the argument of gun control is just not true, it’s a fallacy. You can’t take weapons away from good people and expect that bad people are not going to get their weapons some other way, and then they’re just predators on sheep.”

You pro-gun types make the liberals point. As theys you come across as real lunatics ready to start shootin' at anything that moves. As far as arming a couple of teachers to protect the kids what happens if the are on the other side of the school? Someone could kill many kids before they could respond given the element of surprise. What's your answer, arm ALL the teachers? A nut job with their assault rifle could still kill a bunch of kids and teachers

especially if they shoot the teacher first since they would assume them to be armed with any

You idiot. If a number of teachers are armed I am sure they would be strategically positioned through out the school property and rules and training would be required. That is a fact unless ,of course, the principal of the school is as stupid as you and just lets the armed teachers do what ever without training and rules. Just like a liberal, think with your emotions.

Country Girl

|

January 07, 2013

Let's put this in terms that liberals can understand. Let's say there are thirty five people standing in the middle and two people on opposite sides of the group holding dodge balls. Don't you think it would be better if the thirty five people were holding dodge balls too. Now take the dodge balls away and put guns in its place. The idea alone of arming teachers and allowing more freedom with a cwp will deter the criminals from committing the crime to begin with.

There is only one legal law concerning guns that has been ratified by the states and agreed to by the feds. It shall not be infringed. 5% of the population fought and won the Revolution. A couple of secretly armed teachers can protect the students. Don't let paranoia make you over think this while students die.

The snooty criticism of the good representative from Kennesaw amazes me.

It baffles me that so many citizens of this country have allowed its Elites to convince us that we cannot be trusted with the power of the gun. That we need their "adult supervision" or else we will go crazy and start killing each other. That only the Elites themselves can be trusted with this power...and to supervise the rest of us to minimize the damage that we, the children, would otherwise do to each other without their wise heads and hands to restrain us.

And how did those Elites become Elites? Many by election from among our own ranks. And when did their election convert them from untrustable citizens like us into all-wise Elites who can protect us from hurting our stupid little selves? The moment they were declared "victors"?

How far our once-free, once-proud people have fallen to allow so-called "leaders" to so destroy our own sovereignty and self-confidence... It reminds me of what the same sort of Elites among us did over a century ago to other inhabitants of this land when they found those people's power inconvenient to their purposes.

Of course you are right LTC, lets arm everyone. Wait , you mean just a couple should be armed?...but...a bad guy could just make sure he starts shooting away from the armed individual...soooo in your scenario

all the teachers should be carrying M-4's. Of course, for them to be effective, they will need body armor as well. In addition, they will need years of CQB training. Now, LTC, I don't know what you did in the military, but I trained in CQB, alot. I was ok, but not the best. The best were guys I worked with that were in the kill house several times a week. Those guys were trained to kill an active shooter with a hostage and to not fire any bullets into innocent background. To be able to think clearly in a combat situation, to be able to put rounds on target while your adrenaline is spiking you need training like that, so we should send all the teachers to training with a SEAL team. If that is not feasible (and it's not) then I guess we could give every teacher advanced police training, as well as every other person in the country, because I mean, heck, a mass shooting could happen anywhere right? so we all need to go to SWAT training at a minimum, maybe high risk warrant training as well...night shooting too, cause you never know...

Yep, you are right and I am totally wrong LTC...I'm sure you and all of your bellicose chest thumping ilk speak from experience...let's arm everybody...what could go wrong....I mean, it makes much more sense to put more guns on the street than to simply regulate the military style ones that allow for shooting the maximum number of targets in the least amount of time...what was I thinking...

I won't be checking back for your response because you have clearly out witted me with your verbose postings and your derth of experience behind the trigger. In addition, I will be too busy digging a fighting position in my front yard...god bless america...

You have extensive arguments for why having good people carry guns in schools won't work. Your arguments are all hypothetical; e.g., that teachers carrying won't be able to control their weapons and not kill innocents; and will also fail to stop the assailant.

The answer to your hypothetical arguments is verifiable world history. The countries that allow arms in their schools have far fewer of these tragedies than we do. Check up on Israel, Peru, Thailand, Switzerland (even Time Magazine reported on that one),...

Or are you one of those people for whom verifiable facts don't matter; only squishy knee-jerk emotions? There are many like that out there, and our school system and media are conditioning more all the time...

Tyler_Durden

|

December 24, 2012

The comments section of the MDJ is like a red neck parody.....DUH, FREEDOM! AMURICA! I HEART MY GUNS!

The most insecure, cowardly man you will ever meet is a man that lifts guns up as some miraculous thing that will save him from any threat. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. I own one. It's a handgun. I am military trained and I can hit my target. I don't need an extended clip or armor piercing rounds, and I'm not some insecure pansy that cries about it.

Let's see, we are willing to allow college campus cops to carry guns to protect college students. A group who, to a large extent, are at least capable of responding and taking action to protect themselves.

We are willing to arm other law enforcement or security personnel to protect any number of other adult populated venues

but

We are not willing to provide protection to the most vulnerable portion of our population, our children?

Loosing the right to protect ourselves is not a slippery slope. It is a suicidal Cliff.

cassey

|

December 26, 2012

Ignorance of the facts is no excuse for stupidity. Please do a little research and make intelligent comments.

Your buffoonery does not serve any purpose.

awfulnews

|

December 22, 2012

Complete madness, sent this to friends who couldn't believe such a thing is being proposed. Recommended they read the comment section to hear what rednecks and lunatics sound like. This should be an embarrassment to everyone in the state of Georgia.

I don't know about the CCW Permit law going into effect in 1996, but I do know I got my first CCW Permit in 1981, and the Georgia had been issuing permits for a long time before that.

That being said what we seem to be experiencing in our country is morality unwinding. Hence making life a rather risky behavior to engage in. If more criminal acts were thwarted by the legal gun carrying public, maybe criminals would think twice before perpetrating violent acts on the public at large. As has been said before an armed society is a polite society. The founding fathers made the second amendment about gun ownership for a very important reason. If it is gutted or erased then the first will be erased soon after with the entire constitution being a great idea ruined by socialists.

Rich Pellegrino

|

December 22, 2012

One important fact you left out Bill: violent crime was on a downward spiral before those measures were passed. And you left out the decrease in violent crime in those areas where tougher gun control measures have been implemented. Typical junk, NRA funded science.

Bill Evelyn

|

December 23, 2012

DMC - This is true. In 1968 state law made concealed carry illegal and the Georgia of Constitution of 1976 put that firmly in place. Crime soared and by 1981 the state was allowing for law enforcement, DA's, public figures to get licences. The Constitution of 1983 provided for everyone to apply to a probate judge to get a license to carry a gun, but the 1996 law really liberalized (unrestricted concealed carry) and thus violent crime has been plummeting. Constitutional Carry would have an even bigger effect as many people don't want to apply for a permit. With Constitutional Carry there would be no need to apply.

Kennesaw resident *

|

December 21, 2012

This representative along with the extreme liberal party (Democrats) are part of whats wrong with our country. This guy is the T-Party representative. Sorry, but it will not help us recapture the White house. No idiot who just votes should be allowed to carry a gun. Please resign and lets get a reasonable person to represent us. As a conservative I am ashamed that such legislation was purposed. While I agree that people should be allowed to own guns, reason is the rule of the day here, and such legislation is not reasonable. People should be subjected to background checks and no one should be allowed to carry a gun into a church, or a friendly public setting. Please resign! You are showing you are not fit to carry the mantle of conservatism.

You, sir, are not a conservative. You don't even have the slightest clue what the word even means.

Atlanta resident

|

December 21, 2012

You are wrong and I will do everything in my power to prevent you and others like you from arrogantly imposing your will on others when you have no right to do so. Conservatism is about liberty! You are a clueless hypocrit.

LTCjRet

|

December 21, 2012

Reason being the rule of the day, you have stated your opinion. When can we expect your reason?

You state, "No one should be allowed to carry a gun into a church, or a friendly public setting." That is an opinion; what is your reason for forming it?

I'm seeing a lot of opinions being thrown around in response to this article and quite a few ad hominums while facts are illusive at best and seemingly abhorrent to those offering attacks.

As for churches and friendly public settings, is it the mere presence of a gun that you find objectionable, reasonably speaking? After all, allowed or not, the fact is someone has indeed carried a gun into churches, schools, shopping malls, and other no-longer friendly places. And they have killed unmolested because there was no friendly gun allowed to stop them.

In the last several days we have seen two mass shootings. In one, there were two victims. In the other there were twenty. At Sandy Hook, guns were not "allowed" and yet there they were. No one stopped the killer because they were powerless to do so. At the Oregon mall, the shooter killed two and was then confronted by a civilian with a concealed carry permit and a hand gun. He close not to fire because he could not safely do so with the field of fire he was presented with. But the minute he was confronted the shooter's gun went from killing the defenseless to killing the evil man wielding it.

So God forbid, if your family found themselves in one of those two situations, which would you hope it to be?

The whole premise, as Charles states is for people to allow whatever on their own property! If they (a church or school) want to allow guns on their property then it's their right. Please let's not lose sight of property rights. I am very proud to know Charles. He has my support.

cassey

|

December 28, 2012

From your comments, clearly you do not ascribe to the genuine values of "conservatism" or you would not be engaging in such ridiculous rants.

Name-calling is the last resort of a person who has no reasonable argument.

You failed to capture the real estate of your dreams because you were duped by your leadership into thinking you could exclude the new conservative, independent and disenchanted liberal from your fight.

Your leaders’ greed, exclusivity and arrogance were your undoing. Their tunnel vision was focused on the ridiculous idea that owning the "White House" would make them rich, immortal and all-powerful. Their fight was entirely personal and slanderous with no basis of reason or logic and, with no regard for the ISSUES.

Even now, you focus on personalities rather than examining the facts and statistics. You continue to wield ungrounded slander, incipient with mean-spirited ignorance. You fantasize that your unfounded hatred can give you that which you so rabidly covet – power and control.

YOU SET YOURSELF UP FOR A SURE-FIRE LOSS.

Communism and Socialism will win-out over Exclusivity and Arrogance every time because you are blatantly denying “people” the ability to join you and to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.

Meanwhile, the Statists are busy promising “people” that they will be taken care of from cradle to grave and lulling them into thinking that is what they want.

RINO - YOU DIDN’T SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT. YOU SHOT AMERICA IN THE HEAD.

What you SHOULD have been doing is reaching out to your families, friends, neighbors and people you meet in the street – even to those of liberal persuasion – and explaining to them the common sense reality of "conservatism" verses "statism".

THE TRUTHS OF “FREEDOM” VERSES “SLAVERY’ WILL WIN OVER ANY SANE PERSON EVERY TIME.

mygyro

|

December 30, 2012

Not "people should be allowed to own guns;" that says the right resides in the hands of the government, and the government doles allowances out to people as it pleases.

The Constitution says the opposite: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right resides in the hands of the people. The Constitution says the government is forbidden to mess with our right.

And why do you think the government should have the power and not the people? That is the very reason our forefathers started the American Revolution in the first place! Are you another sheep who doesn't trust the law-abiding citizens, but only the power-wielding officials?

Unbelievable that we have so many people begging the government to take over our rights..."for our own good."

What has happened to the Republic of liberty and individual rights and responsibilities that our ancestors fought and died to give us?

tgeezy

|

December 21, 2012

Way to go Mr. Gregory! I hope more legislators will follow suit. All it takes is researching and looking at facts to prove that allowing more good people to carry guns cuts back dramatically on crime. Thanks Mr. Gregory. You will always have my support now!!!

Your exactly right! When I lived in Ky before moving Ga, we all quoted "Kennessaw" as an example of gun possession working to lower crime. It is a "no-brainer", a thug, rapist, or murderer is going to have no fear entering a place or home that is not allowed to protect themselves, but if they know everyone has a gun........then it will take a true psycho to even attempt it.

Rich Pellegrino

|

December 22, 2012

Junk science "facts" paid for by the NRA, a domestic terrorist organization.

VFP42

|

December 24, 2012

Kennesaw just recently got a bunch of apartments. Currently they are occupied by young sexy college students. Give those students 4 or 5 years to absolutely destroy these places and for Mitt's "apartment dwellers" to move in. Then let's see how Kennesaw's crime rate is looking.

Be Careful

|

December 21, 2012

It's simple.

If you don't believe in guns, don't buy one.

What I fail to understand are those who say "no guns". They are in fact saying that they want innocent people killed. They would rather have 20-30 kids killed in a school than to give someone at the school the ability to defend themselves. I'm sure that in any school there are teachers who feel anti-gun and woudln't want one in their class. But there would also be some that DO want the ability to protect themselves and their children. It should be voluntary and they should be trained.

When will people understand, making someting illegal doesn't stop it.

Murder is illegal, how's that working?

Drunk driving is illegal, how many thousands are killed?

Drugs are illegal, how many die fro ODs every year?

No law will prevent a criminal from doing what they want to do.

If you don't want to protect yourself, that's your decision. But don't FORCE me into a position where I'm unable to defend myself.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides